International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 2175
And
Pierce
County Fire District No. 7
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Paul P. Tinning
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Tinning; Paul P.
Case #: 10358-I-93-00221
Employer:
Pierce County Fire District 7
Date Issued:
In the Matter of Interest
Arbitration )
)
between )
)
PIERCE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
NO. 7 )
)
District, ) Re: Contract
Issues
) in
Dispute
and )
) PERC
Case No.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) 10358-I-93-00221
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 2175, )
)
Association. )
________________________________ )
INTEREST ARBITRATION
DETERMINATIONS AND AWARD
Arbitration panel: PAUL P. TINNING, Neutral Chairperson
BILL R. WILLIAMS, District Member
MICHAEL J. McGOVERN,
Association Member
Dated:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Comparable
Jurisdictions........................................................................ 4
Issue 1: Monthly Rates of
Pay (Article 8) .................................... 14
Issue 2: Work Hours
(Article 9)..................................................... 17
Issue 3: Vacation Accrual
for Day Shift (Article 12)................... 27
Issue 4: Seniority/Personnel
Reduction (Article 19)................... 29
Issue 5: Medical and Dental
Premiums (Article 20)................... 32
Issue 6: Sick Leave
(Article 21).................................................... 34
Issue 7: Grievance
Procedure (Article 22).................................. 38
Issue 8: Pay Out of
Classification (Article 23)............................. 48
Issue 9: Deferred
Compensation (Article 28) ............................ 53
Issue 10: Chain of Command (Article
33)..................................... 55
Recapitulation of
Determinations and Award
of Arbitration panel
................................................................................. 58
Table I: Comparable Jurisdictions Senior
Firefighter .............. 65
INTRODUCTION I ON
By telephonic contact in late May of 1993,
Michael J. McGovern,
president,
of Fire Fighters, and
Association member of the arbitration
panel herein, advised the
undersigned Arbitrator that he had
been selected by the parties
herein to serve as neutral
chairperson of an arbitration
panel(1) (hereinafter the "panel")
empaneled
to resolve an "interest" dispute concerning terms
and conditions of employment
between PIERCE
DISTRICT 7 (hereinafter the
"District") and the INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
LOCAL 2175 (hereinafter the
"Association")
. The instant case is identified as PERC
No.
10358-I-93-00221 assigned by
the Public Employment Relations
Commission (PERC) of the State
of
_____
(1) In addition to the undersigned Neutral Chairperson
and Michael J. McGovern as
panel members, the panel included
Bill Williams, Executive
Director of pierce
District No. 9, representing
Fire District No. 7.
_____
The purpose of the neutral chairperson (hereinafter
"Chair") is, after
consultation with panel members, to make
written findings of fact and
written determinations of the
issue in dispute. RCW 41.56.450
At the request of the parties, hearings in this
matter were held on July 27
and 28, 1993, in a conference
room in Fire Station 71
located in Spanaway, Washington.
The parties were afforded a
full and complete opportunity to
be heard, to call witnesses,
to introduce evidence and present
argument. Upon conclusion of their case presentations,
the
parties agreed to submit
post-hearing briefs, with
simultaneous service on each
other, postmarked September 1,
1993. The Association's brief was received by the
Chair on
hearing closed.
APPEARANCES
For the District:
MICHAEL J. MEGLEMRE,
Public Employers
WILLIAM E. THOMAS, Chief,
Fire District 7
For the Association:
JACK M. ANDREN, President,
IAFF Local 2175
TIM LOOKABAUGH, Bargaining Unit
Representative
JOHN SEERLEY, Bargaining
Unit Negotiator
BACKGROUND
A. District
The District provides fire suppression and emergency
medical services to a populace
of 38,000. Such services are
provided by 15 fire fighters,
including a chief.
B. Association Bargaining Unit
The 15 fire fighters in the bargaining unit are
represented by the Association
for purposes of collective
bargaining. They work a rotating 24-hour modified
"
with a pattern of six (6) days
on duty and three (3) days
off duty. The average work week, however, is reduced to
53 hours by using
"Kelly" days scheduled throughout the
year.
The District and the Association are parties to
a collective bargaining
agreement covering the period from
1990 through 1992.
C. Consolidation of Fire Districts
The District and Pierce County Fire Districts
Nos. 6 and 9 entered into an
"Interlocal Agreement for
Consolidation of
Operations," effective
for purposes of consolidating
operational and administrative
services throughout the
districts. The three (3)
"Districts,"
as they are collectively
referenced, contracted with Bill
Williams, Chief of District
No. 9, to be the Executive
Director of the consolidated
operations (Assoc. Ex. 1)
According to District Chief
Thomas, such consolidation
would become operational,
subject to voter approval, in
D. Comparable Jurisdictions
A. Association
The Association proposed that
District Nos. 6 and 9 be used
as comparable jurisdictions
in determining wages and terms
of employment for District
employees that it represents
primarily on the grounds
that consolidation of the
three (3) districts is imminent
and partially operational;
therefore, the Association
argued that the wages and
conditions of employment for
District employees should be
comparable to those in the
other two (2) districts,
especially District 9 (Assoc.
Br. 8; Assoc. Exs. 1-11).
The Association acknowledged that the parties
have historically relied upon
a list of comparable
jurisdictions as far back as
the 1970's, claiming that
such listing was rejected by
the Association because of
the pending consolidation of
the three (3) districts
(Assoc. Br. 8) (2)
_____
(2) The panel notes that the comparable jurisdictions
historically relied upon by
the parties included
Fire Districts 2, 3, 5, 6 and
9.
_____
The Association submits that the list of
comparable jurisdictions
presented by the District at the
arbitration hearing had never
been relied upon or agreed to
by the parties (Assoc. Br.
8). Moreover, the Association
submits that the District's
comparables are "flawed" and
should not be relied upon.
B. District
The District proposed a list of comparable
jurisdictions based upon three
(3) criteria allegedly
relied upon in such interest
arbitration proceedings,
namely:
1. Geography
-- Comparable
jurisdictions . . . from within
a 30-mile radius of the City
of
to the counties of King,
Pierce, Kitsap and Snohomish.
These . . . counties constitute
the
Council, a federally mandated
metropolitan planning
organization ('MPO').
2. Population
-- Jurisdictions
with a + 50% that of Pierce
County District 7.
3. Assessed
Valuation --
Jurisdictions with assessed
valuation + that of Pierce
County District 7.
(Dist.
Out of the 16 jurisdictions which satisfied all
of the foregoing criteria, the
District claimed that it
selected, based upon assessed
valuation, eight (8)
jurisdictions as comparables,
four (4) of which were
higher and four (4) of which
were lower than the District's
assessed valuation (Dist.
jurisdictions chosen, the
District claimed that it
excluded the City of
new labor agreement had not
been reached and wages and
benefits were still at the
1991 level. Therefore, the
District chose the following
as comparable jurisdictions:
(1)
Fire District No. 15; (3)
Pierce County Fire District
No. 6; (4)
City Fire Department; (6)
Pierce County Fire District
No. 21; and (7)
In support of its selection of comparable
jurisdictions, the District
argued that in City of
Bellevue, infra,
Arbitrator Gaunt concluded that:
[A]n examination of arbitration
decisions . . . reveals that there
is no uniform view as to how size
is to be measured. For awhile,
multi-factor analysis was in
vogue, but many parties and
arbitrators now seem to be
favoring serviced populations
and assessed valuation as the
principal parameters for
measuring size. While the Chair
does not mean to suggest that
a multi-factor analyses is never
justified, she does believe
reliance principally on serviced
population and assessed valuation
of property protected is the
better approach. If either
of those parameters fall within
a range judged 'similar' then
an employer can reasonably be
considered of 'similar size'
within the meaning of
RCW 41.56.460 (c) (ii).
(Emphasis by District.)
(Dist. Br. 7)
The District submits that the comparable
jurisdictions chosen comport
with statutory intent and
purpose, including arbitral
approval (Dist. Br. 7) . In
contrast, the District argued
that the Association did not
objectively select comparable
jurisdictions as evidenced by
its reliance in contract
negotiations on an alleged past
practice of using, as
comparable jurisdictions, the following
jurisdictions: Lakewood Fire Department; University Fire
Department; and Pierce County
Fire District Nos. 5, 6 and 9,
but then during the
arbitration hearing rejected three (3)
of those comparables and
relied solely on Pierce County
Fire District Nos. 6 and
9. Notwithstanding data that
reveal wages in the District,
which includes the District's
wage and/or benefit package
offer of 3.6 percent, rank
second only to District 9, the
District submits that such
revelation presumably accounts
for the Association's deletion
of formerly relied upon
comparable jurisdictions and its
sole reliance on District 9
for wage and benefit parity
(Dist. Br. 8-9, Dist. Table
1).
In rejecting the Association's proposals for
parity with District 9, the
District pointed out that
there were considerable
differences between both districts,
namely, that District 9
employs 34 career fire fighters
in contrast to 15 firefighters
employed by the District;
that the current population of
District 9 is 55,000
which exceeds that of the
District by 17,000; that the
assessed valuation of District
9 is $1,543,948,622
compared to the District's
assessed valuation of
$835,780,160; that the service
area of District 9
is 44 square miles which is
twice the size of the
District's service area; and
that in 1992 the District
responded to 2,698 calls, or
25 percent more calls
than the District (Dist. Br.
9).
C. Finding
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that the parties proposed
comparable jurisdictions which
had not been agreed upon
and which were different from
comparable jurisdictions
historically relied upon by
them in the past. As noted
earlier herein, those
jurisdictions included Pierce County
Fire Districts 2, 3, 5, 6 and
9.
2. In
light of considerable differences between
the parties over the
comparable jurisdictions to be used in
this proceeding, the panel
finds and concludes that for
purposes of review and
analysis of current wage and benefit
data that the jurisdictions of
Pierce County Fire Districts 2,
3, 6 and 9 historically relied
upon by the parties will serve
as comparators in determining
wage and benefit increases on a
"total package"
basis. Pierce County Fire District 5 was
not
included as a comparator on
the ground that the wage and
benefit data for that
jurisdiction are based upon data for
1991.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing findings,
determines that four (4) of
the five (5) comparable
jurisdictions which the
parties have historically relied on
in contract negotiations will
serve as comparators for
purposes of determining wage
and benefit increases on a
"total package"
basis, namely, Pierce County Fire Districts 2,
3, 6 and 9.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The instant interest arbitration proceeding
relative to an impasse in
collective bargaining between
uniformed personnel and public
employers in the State
of Washington arose under the
statutory provisions of
RCW 41.56.430. The arbitration panel is empowered to
make its determination taking
into consideration the
legislative purpose stated in
RCW 41.56.430 and the
following factors:
(a) [T]he
constitutional and
statutory authority of
the employer;
(b) [S]tipulation of the parties;
(c) *
* *
(ii) [F]or . . . [fire
fighters] . . .
comparison
of the wages, hours,
and
conditions of
employment
of personnel involved
in
the proceedings with
the wages, hours, and
conditions of
employment
of like personnel of
public fire
departments
of similar size on
the
west coast of the
United
States. However, when
an adequate number of
comparable employers
exists within the
state
of Washington, other
west coast employers
shall
not be considered;
(d) [T]he
average consumer prices
for goods and services,
commonly known as the cost
of living;
(e) [C]hanges in any of the
foregoing circumstances during
the pendency
of the proceedings;
and
(f) [S]uch other factors, not
confined to the foregoing,
which are normally or
traditionally taken into
consideration in the
determination of wages,
hours and conditions of
employment. RCW 41.56.460
By letter of April 16, 1993, Marvin L. Schurke,
Executive Director of the
Public Employment Relations
Commission (herein
"PERC"), certified to Association
representatives that 15 issues
remained in dispute between
the District and the
Association (Jt. Ex. 1) . Subsequent
to such certification, three
(3) of the issues (Witness
Services, EMT, Hazard Material
Technician Pay) , were
withdrawn and, at the close of
the hearing, the Association
withdrew the issue concerning
procedure for changing rules
and regulations.
The issue of Light Duty was resolved by the
parties at the hearing with
the assistance of the arbitration
panel.
The 10 issues remaining in dispute are as follows:
1. Monthly
Rates of Pay (Article 8,
Section 1);
2. (a) Hours for Shift Employees
(Article 9, various
Sections)
(b) Hours for Day Employees
(c) Normal Working Hours (shift)
(d) Scheduling of "K" Days
3. Vacation
Accrual for Day Shift
(Article 12, Section 2);
4. Seniority/Personnel
Reduction
(Article 19, Sections 1, 2);
5. Medical
and Dental Premiums
(Article 20, Section 3);
6. Sick
Leave Accrual for Day Shift
Sick Leave Buy-back (Article 21,
Sections 2, 6);
7. Effect
of Employer Failure to
Answer Grievance
Time Period to File Grievance
Time Period to Advance Grievance
to Fire Chief
(Article 22,
Sections 4, 5, 5.1);
8. Pay
Out of Classification
(Article 23) ;
9. Deferred
Compensation (Article 28,
Sections 2, 2.1); and
10. Chain
of Command (Article 33).
With regard to disputed issue number 7 (Grievance
Procedure, Article 22),
Association representative Andren
claimed that such issue was
resolved by the parties during
contract negotiations, noting
that the District was allowed
to reintroduce the issue
during mediation as part of a
package offer which was
rejected by the Association. In
light of the background
surrounding this issue, Mr. Andren
objected to the inclusion of
such issue in the list of
disputed issues certified by
the Executive Director of
PERC. He likewise objected to the chairperson
allowing
the subject issue to be heard,
discussed and argued
during the instant arbitration
hearing (Assoc. Br. 3,
footnote 1) .(3)
_____
(3) References to the parties' post-hearing briefs
will be designated
"Assoc. Br." (Association Brief) and
"Dist. Br."
(District Brief) followed by the page number(s).
References to the exhibits
will be designated as follows:
"Jt.
Ex." (Joint Exhibit); "Assoc. Ex." (Association
Exhibit); and "Dist.
Ex." (District Exhibit).
_____
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
Issue 1: Monthly Rates of Pay (Article 8)
A. Association
The Association proposed a wage increase of
7.6 percent over base salary,
based solely on the current
salary schedule for District 9
(Assoc. Ex. 12; Assoc.
on the pending consolidation
of Districts 6, 7 and 9.
B. District
The District offered a wage and benefit package
of 3.6 percent based on the
consumer price index (CPI-U)
for the Seattle area (Dist.
Ex. 3; Dist. Br. 17-21).
In support of its proposal,
the District relied upon
comparable jurisdictions which
the panel rejected in favor
of the parties' reliance on
historical comparable
jurisdictions.
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that District 5 is currently
at impasse in contract
negotiations and is still working
under a 1991 labor
agreement. In view of 1991 contract
wage data for that
jurisdiction, the panel concludes that
District 5 should not be
included as a comparable
jurisdiction for purposes of
calculating an average monthly
wage. The panel further notes that District 6 will
receive
an additional three (3)
percent wage increase effective
December 1, 1993.
2. The
panel finds that a review and an analysis
of the monthly wage data of
the comparable jurisdictions
reveal an average monthly wage
of $3573. The panel notes
that the current monthly wage
of the District's first class
fire fighters is $3347, or
$226 or 6.75 percent below the
average monthly wage of the
comparable jurisdictions.
3. RCW
41.56.430 specifically provides for
comparing the ". . .
wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of like personnel
of public fire departments . . . . "
In applying such statutory
directives, coupled with
consideration of the proposed
consolidation of the three
(3) fire districts (6, 7 and
9) operationally targeted
for January 1, 1994, the panel
finds that a wage increase
of 6.75 percent for District
bargaining unit employees is
appropriate and reasonable.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards a wage increase of
6.75 percent for bargaining
unit employees retroactive
to January 1, 1993.
Issue 2: Work Hours (Article 9)
(a) Hours for Shift Employees
A. Association
The Association proposed a reduction in hours of
24-hour shift employees from
53 to 50.92 hours retroactive
to January 1, 1993 (Assoc. Ex.
14; Assoc. Br. 10). In
support of its proposal, the
Association relied solely on
the existing contract language
in the District 9 labor
agreement. The Association calculated the cost of such
proposal at 3.9 percent.
B. District
The District proposed to maintain the current
work week for 24-hour shift
employees at 53 hours (Dist.
Ex. 4; Dist. Br. 21-23). In support of its proposal, the
District relied on a list of
comparable jurisdictions which
the panel rejected.
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an analysis
of the data of comparable
jurisdictions reveal an average
work week of 51.62 hours for
24-hour shift employees in those
jurisdictions.
2. The
panel finds that the data of such
comparable jurisdictions
warrant some modification to the
District's current work week,
specifically, that another
K-day be granted thereby
reducing the work week of 24-hour
shift employees from 53 to
52.54 hours.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that 24-hour shift
employees of the District be
granted another K-Day,
thereby reducing their work
week from 53 to 52.54 hours.
(b) Hours for Day Employees
A. Association
The Association proposed that Article 9,
Section 2 of the current
bargaining agreement be deleted
and that the following
language be substituted therefor:
[T]he normal working hours for
day personnel shall be forty
(40) hours per week, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. to include a
one-hour lunch period.
Employees covered under this
section of the contract may
work a flex schedule, work
load permitting.
(Assoc. Ex. 16)
In support of its proposal, the Association
claims that such proposed
language is an "exact duplicate"
of language contained in the
current labor agreements in
Pierce County Fire District
Nos. 6 and 9, noting, however,
that the District 6 agreement
contains additional language
dealing with day-shift
suppression employees who work a
four (4)-day week, 11-hour
days (Assoc. Ex. 16; Assoc.
Br. 10-11)
The Association submits that the subject proposal
represents an increase of 3.9
percent over the current base
(Assoc. Br. 10).
B. District
The District contends and argues that the
Association's proposal to
reduce the work week of day-shift
employees from 45 to 40 hours,
including virtually all of
the other Association
proposals in this arbitration
proceeding, are premised on
reliance on similar, if not
identical, contract provisions
contained in the bargaining
agreements of Fire Districts 6
and 9, with special emphasis
on District 9. Such reliance on but two (2) jurisdictions,
which the District submits are
not comparable as evidenced
by the fact that District 9
has an assessed valuation of
$1,543,948,622, whereas the
District's valuation is
$835,780,160, is not
persuasive evidence for such proposals
(Dist. Ex. 5; Dist. Br.
23-24).
In rejecting the subject proposal, as well as
the other Association
proposals, the District contends
and argues that the
acceptability of each proposal must
be based upon ". . .
overwhelmingly hard, concrete, positive
and persuasive evidence,"
citing in support therefor the
interest arbitration case of
Kennewick Police Officers'
Benefit Association and the
City of Kennewick (1984),
wherein Arbitrator Charles S. LaCugna stated, in pertinent
part, that:
[P]arties change the status quo
if the proposing party can
adduce overwhelmingly hard,
concrete, positive, and
persuasive evidence to show a
proposal is not only desirable
but practical and necessary.
(Dist. Op. Statement)
The District also relied on City of Bellevue and
Bellevue Firefighters Local
1604, PERC Case No. 6811-1-87-162,
(1988) , wherein Janet L.
Gaunt, neutral chairperson, stated,
in adopting the "total
package" concept, that:
[W]e adopt as well the principal
[sic] that the party seeking to
change an existing contract
provision or established past
practice should appropriately
bear the burden of persuasion ...
that the existing language or
practice is unworkable or
inequitable and there is a
compelling need to change it.
If the arguments offered in
support of a change do not
clearly outweight
[sic]
arguments in favor of the
status quo then the status quo
should be maintained.
(Dist. Br. 12-13)
While acknowledging that the subject proposal may
be "desirable" to
the Association, the District claimed
that it fails to meet the
foregoing test of acceptability.
Moreover, the District submits
that the proposal impinges
on the right of management to
change the work week and/or
its specific characteristics
therein (Dist. Ex 5).
The District also contends and argues that the
subject proposal to reduce the
hourly work week would
severely impact operations by
virtue of an annual reduction
in hours approximating 11.1
percent, and a 12.5 percent
increase in the hourly rate of
pay (Dist. Ex. 5).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and analysis
of data of comparable
jurisdictions reveals that day-shift
employees in all four (4)
comparable jurisdictions work
40 hours per week.
2. The
panel further finds that Districts 2,
6 and 9 provide that such work
week is from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
3. The
panel takes judicial notice of the
federal Fair Labor Standards
Act which requires that public
employers and public employees
cannot waive the overtime
requirement for time worked
over 40 hours per week as cited
in U.S. Department of Labor
Wage & Hour Division 29 CFR
Chapter V, Subsection 500.10.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing findings,
determines arid awards that
day-shift employees of the District
shall work 40 hours per week,
Monday through Friday, from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
including a one-hour lunch period,
and that they may work a flex
schedule, work load permitting.
(c) Normal Working for Shift Employees
A. Association
The Association proposed new contract language
providing normal working hours
for shift employees from
7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
weekdays and to noon on Sunday in
return for a commitment that
paid personnel on duty will
participate in volunteer
training on Tuesday evening
(Assoc. Ex. 17; Assoc. Br.
11-12). In support of its
proposal, the Association
relied on the same contract
language contained in the
District 9 labor agreement.
B. District
The District rejected the Association's proposal
on the ground that it intrudes
upon the right of management
to schedule employees (Dist.
Br. 23-24).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an analysis
of the data of comparable
jurisdictions reveals that the
labor agreements in two (2) of
the jurisdictions (Districts 3,
6) are silent on the issue of
normal work hours.
2. The
panel further finds that the labor
agreement in District 9
contains identical contract language
as that proposed by the
Association, and the labor agreement
in District 2 contains
contract language substantially similar
to that proposed by the
Association.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing findings,
determines that the contract
language in the District 2
labor agreement regarding the
issue of normal working hours
for shift personnel provides a
manageable, productive work
schedule for both the District
and the Association.
2. Accordingly,
the panel determines and awards
that the following language be
incorporated in the new
labor agreement between the
parties:
Productive hours for shift
personnel
shall be 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday and 8:00
a.m.-
5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday,
excluding holidays.
One hour of productive time shall
be set aside for physical
training
Monday through Friday.
Duties assigned during productive
hours on Saturday and Sunday
shall
be limited to PR activities and
in-station projects (i.e. -
weekly
station cleaning, weekly hose
change, in-house training
opportunities, etc.)
Training drills may be scheduled
during non-productive hours
(excluding holidays) on a
reasonably limited basis. Such
drills shall be pre-scheduled
on the quarterly training
schedule.
PR activities (i.e. - public
display, parades, standby during
fireworks displays, etc.) may be
scheduled during non-productive
hours. The employees involved
in the drill and/or PR activity
shall be compensated with an
equal amount of standby time
during productive hours prior
to such events taking place.
Nothing herein shall limit the
District in exercising discretion
in varying the hours of duty of
any employee in accordance with
past practice.
(d) Scheduling of "K"-Days
A. Association
The Association proposed that shift employees
select their K-Days (Assoc.
Ex. 18; Assoc. Br. 12-13).
In support of its proposal,
the Association relied solely
on identical contract language
contained in the labor
agreements of District 6 and
District 9.
B. District
The District rejected the Association's proposal
on the ground that it is
unreasonable (Dist. Br. 21).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an analysis
of the data of comparable
jurisdictions reveals that the labor
agreement in District 3 is
silent on the issue of selecting
K-Days.
2. The
panel further finds that the labor
agreement in District 2
provides that K-Days(4) are scheduled
by that District.
_____
(4) The panel notes that a "K"-Day in fire fighter
parlance is understood to be a
24-hour day off to accomplish
a reduction in weekly work
hours for jurisdictions that work
less a 56-hour work week, but
on a 56-hour schedule.
_____
3. The
panel further finds that the labor
agreements in District 6 and
District 9 contain contract
language identical to that
proposed by the Association.
D. Determinations and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the current contract
language be retained with
respect to the scheduling of
K-Days.
2. The
panel further determines and awards
that the current contract
language be amended only to
reflect the panel's
determination and award regarding
Issue 2 -- Hours for Shift
Employees --, specifically,
that ". . . 24-hour shift
employees of the District be granted
another K-Day thereby reducing
their work week from 53 to
52.54 hours."
Issue 3: Vacation Accrual for day Shift
(Article 12)
A. Association
The Association proposed that, by virtue of the
proposed reduction in hours
for day-shift employees from 45
to 40 hours, there would be a
corollary reduction in accruable
vacation hours. The Association submits, for example, that
under the 40 hour work week
that an employee with one (1) to
12 months of employment would
accrue, 3.333 hours of vacation
as opposed to 3.75 hours under
the current labor agreement
(Assoc. Ex. 5; Assoc. Ex. 19).
B. District
The District, as noted earlier herein, takes
the position that since this
proposal is collateral to the
Association's proposal
regarding day-shift hours that a
decision by the arbitration
panel on the latter will be
dispositive
of the former (Dist. Ex. 5).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that as a result of our
findings, determinations and
award in issue 2 (b) regarding
hours for day-shift employees,
specifically, that the work
week for such employees be
reduced from 45 to 40 hours,
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, with a
one-hour lunch period and that
such employees may work a
flex schedule, workload
permitting, that such determination
and award are dispositive of issue 3 regarding vacation
accrual for day-shift
employees.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing finding,
determines and awards that the
Association's proposal for
vacation accrual for day-shift
employees be adopted and
incorporated in the new labor
agreement.
Issue 4: Seniority/Personnel Reduction
(Article 19)
A. Association
The Association proposed that in the event of a
reduction in force that the
least senior employee be laid
off first; that such employee
be given an opportunity to
return to work before a new
employee is hired; and that
seniority shall not be
determined by rank, but rather by
date of hire, including use of
overall test scores where
two (2) or more employees have
the same date of hire
(Assoc. Ex. 20).
The current labor agreement provides a four-tier
seniority system, namely,
first by rank; second by
continuous service in rank
with the District; third by
continuous time in service
with the District; and fourth
by continuous service as a
volunteer with the District.
The Association further proposed that the
District maintain a current
seniority list on all
bargaining unit employees
(Assoc. Ex. 20; Assoc. Br. 14).
In support of its proposal, the Association
argued that Fire Districts 6
and 9 have similar contract
language (Assoc. Ex. 20;
Assoc. Br. 14). In further
support of the subject
proposal, Association representative
Seerley
testified under cross-examination by the District
that the proposal represents
the surest way to "alleviate"
any problems that might arise
from consolidation of the
District with Districts 6 and
9.
B. District
The District contends and argues that the
Association's proposal
represents another infringement on
the right of the District to
manage and direct the workforce.
In rejecting such proposal,
the District submits that five
(5) of the seven (7)
comparable jurisdictions it relied upon
allow management to determine
how to effectively use its
resources in the event of a
reduction in force (Dist. Ex. 6;
Dist. Br. 24-26)
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an
analysis of the comparable
jurisdictions reveal that the
labor agreements in District 6
and District 9 contain
contract language governing
seniority, namely, by date of
hire and specifically, that
seniority is not determined
by rank.
2. The
panel further finds that the civil
service rules in District 2
provide that seniority is
governed by date of hire.
3. The
panel also finds that the labor agreement
in District 3 contains
contract language governing seniority
similar to the current
contract language of the District.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing findings,
determines and awards that the
Association's proposal
governing seniority,
specifically, by date of hire, be
adopted and incorporated in
the new labor agreement.
Issue 5: Medical and Dental Premiums
(Article 20)
A. Association
The Association proposed that the District
contribute 100 percent of the
premium for the combined
employee and dependent
medical, dental and orthodontic
insurance (Assoc. Ex. 21;
Assoc. Br. 15-16). In support
of its proposal, the
Association relied on similar
contract language in the
District 6 labor agreement,
including the maximum premium
cap of $514, or 100 percent
of the current premium in
District 9. The Association
calculated the cost of such
proposal at 1.3 percent.
B. District
The District proposed to maintain the current
contract language governing
District/employee contributions
for medical/dental insurance,
specifically, a monthly
maximum of $425, with a
District/employee equal share of
$44.50 ($89) for a total cost
of $514 (Dist. Ex. 7; Dist.
Br. 26-27). In support of its proposal, the District
relied
on its list of comparable
jurisdictions which the panel
rejected.
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an analysis
of the comparable
jurisdictions reveal that each jurisdiction
pays, in effect, 100 percent
(i.e., District 9, contributes
a maximum cap of $514, which
is currently 100 percent cost
of premium) and the other
three (3) jurisdictions contribute
100 percent of premium for
medical/dental insurance without
any cap).
D. Determinations
and Award
The panel, in light of the foregoing finding,
determines and awards that the
District's maximum
contribution for
medical/dental insurance be increased to
$514, plus 50 percent of the
contribution in excess of
$514 effective the first day
of the month following the
date of this opinion and
award.
Issue 6: Sick Leave (Article 21)
(a) Sick Leave Accrual for Day Shift
A. Association
The Association proposed that full-time day-shift
employees accrue paid sick
leave at the rate of 17 hours
for each full month of service
cumulative to a maximum of
1170 hours as opposed to 18
hours each month with the same
maximum accumulation, under
the current labor agreement
(Assoc. Ex. 22; Assoc. Br.
16).
B. District
The District proposed that the existing contract
language governing sick leave
be retained in its entirety.
The District pointed out,
however, that the decision by
the arbitration panel on the
Association's proposal
regarding shift hours worked
will be dispositive of the
subject proposal by the
Association (Dist. Ex. 8; Dist.
Br. 27-29)
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that as a result of our
findings, determinations and
award in issue 2 (b) regarding
hours for day-shift employees,
namely, that the work week
for such employees be reduced
from 45 to 40 hours, that
such determination and award
are dispositive of issue 6 (a)
regarding sick leave accrual for
day-shift employees.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing finding,
determines and awards that the
Association's proposal for
sick leave accrual for
day-shift employees be adopted and
incorporated in the new labor
agreement.
(b) Sick Leave Buy-Back
A. Association
The Association proposed a new contract provision
requiring that the District
buy back unused sick leave in
excess of the cumulative
maximum at the ". . . rate of .25%
of the employee's base pay . .
. " payable in "November" of
each year and that such
payment will be treated as "regular
income" (Assoc. Ex. 23;
Assoc. Br. 17). In support of such
proposal, the Association
submits that the subject language
is identical to the language
contained in the bargaining
agreement in District 9.
B. District
The District rejected the Association's proposal
on the grounds that it
represents an "extorniate" claim that
the District, according to the
Association, would benefit
from a buy-back of sick leave
in excess of the cumulative
maximum because employees
would not use sick leave rather
than losing it (Dist. Ex. 8)
. Rather, the District argued
that the Association's
proposal would ". . . encourage an
employee who may be ill,
perhaps contagious, to report for
work" (Dist. Ex. 8; Dist.
Br. 28).
Moreover, the District submits that it does not
"pay off" employees
for not using their medical coverage,
nor does the insurance carrier
rebate insurance premiums
on those employees (Dist. Ex.
8; Dist. Ex. 8).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an analysis
of the data of comparable
jurisdictions reveal that District 9
is the only jurisdiction that
provides a sick leave "buy-back"
program at the rate of 25
percent for sick leave in excess of
the maximum accrual.
D. Determinations
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
finding, determines that the
Association's proposal for
sick leave
"buy-back" is not supported by the record
evidence.
Issue 7: Grievance Procedure (Article 22)
A. Association
The Association argued that the grievance contract
language tentatively agreed to
by the parties during
negotiations on November 4,
1992, be adopted and incorporated
in the new collective
bargaining agreement (Assoc. Ex. 24;
Assoc. Br. 17).
In support of its position, the Association
submits that the District
reopened negotiations concerning
the grievance procedure over
the Association's objection
and continuing objection in
this arbitration proceeding,
claiming that such matter
should not be considered by the
arbitration panel because the
tentative agreement between
the parties is binding" (Assoc. Ex. 24; Assoc. Br. 17).
B. District
The District argued that the Association's motion
at the arbitration hearing to
strike the District's
grievance procedure proposal on
the grounds that the
parties reached tentative
agreement (TA) on such matter
during negotiations has no
basis in the state of Washington
public sector bargaining law
which does not preclude changing
positions during negotiations,
mediation and arbitration.
Moreover, the District submits
that the parties, at the
outset of negotiations,
established a ground rule
reserving the right to change,
modify or delete any
language covered by a TA up
until joint ratification
of the agreement, referring to
such rule in jest as
". . . [I]t ain't a deal till the fat lady sings"
(Dist. Br. 3).
The District further pointed out that PERC
mediator Downing rejected the
Association's petition to
disallow the changes proposed
by the District during
mediation and thereby certified
such changes to PERC.
Such changes, according to the
District, were prompted
by the Association's alleged
abuse of the current contract
grievance language which, the
District submits, permitted
the Association to avoid a
grievance arbitration case
(Dist. Br. 3).
The District contends and argues that either
party may alter its position
during negotiations,
mediation and interest
arbitration (Dist. Br. 3).
In support therefor,
the District relied on the interest
arbitration case of International
Association of
Firefighters Local 876 and
Spokane County Fire District
No. 1,
PERC Case No. 07233-I-88-0171 (1988) , pp. 49-51,
wherein Arbitrator
(Chairperson) Kenneth M. McCaffree
stated that:
[T]he Union pointed out in
several
places that the District offered
a three percent salary increase
for 1988 in mediation and that
the Union reduced its demand for
a wage increase from 21 percent
to 6.3 percent. The Union
entered this arbitration with
a proposed 6.3 percent wage
increase, whereas the District
withdrew its prior offer, and
argued that no increase was
justified.
[T]he implication of the Union
argument, along with comments
about the 'model' firefighters,
was that the employer had no
basis for changing its position
between mediation and
arbitration. The chairman
disagrees, and believes these
arguments represent a
misconception of interest
arbitration as construed
generally and in the Washington
statute specifically.
In the first place, the statute
places no requirements on either
party to go into arbitration
on the same basis that they
left mediation. No place in
the statute is any reference
made to 'last offer'
arbitration. Not only may
the employer or union change
its position on a specific
issue in interest arbitration,
but the panel is not required
by the guidelines to examine
or rationalize settlement
only within the range of
the last offers of the
parties prior to arbitration.
The panel examines the
proposals of parties at the
arbitration, not what they
have been or might have been
or should be in the judgment
of one party or the other
with regard to the other's
proposal. The function of
the party in arbitration is
to convince the panel and
the neutral chairman
specifically that its
position in arbitration
is meritorious, whatever
its position at that time.
[I]n addition, the purpose
of interest arbitration is a
means to replace the strike
among public uniformed
personnel, per RCW 41.56.430.
Certainly in the course of
a strike, an employer seldom
leaves on the negotiating
table what was there before.
A strike is a new 'ball game,'
with a different set of rules
than the usual course of
negotiations.
[S]uch,
also, is the case with
interest arbitration under the
Washington statutes. The panel
of arbitrators is an agency of
the state, not of the parties,
and its functions are set
by the statute, not by the
parties. The process of
interest arbitration brings
uncertainty into the settlement
possibilities. Since interest
arbitration is a last resort
effort (in lieu of a strike),
and a recognition of the
failure of the parties to
reach a mutually acceptable
agreement, this uncertainty
provides a valuable incentive
to the parties to reach their
own settlement. If interest
arbitration was approached
with the concept that what
the employer had offered is
certain, or the employer
knows its maximum liability
from the union's last offer,
neither has any reason to
settle, but can spend a
little time and effort, and
hope to improve its situation.
Nothing gained is only a
small loss. Interest
arbitration is the last
resort for settlement under
a different set of rules and
guidelines, and with an
element of uncertainty.
It is directed towards
providing the parties with
an incentive to exercise
their greatest effort to
reach agreement on their
own, and, in doing so, to
strengthen and improve the
relationship between union,
employees and employer.
(Dist. Br. 4-5)
The District proposed to amend Section 4 of
Article 22, which deals with
time limitations for
processing a grievance which
is automatically sustained
for untimely response by the
District, by deleting the
forfeiture language for
untimely response, specifically,
that which ". . .
presumes that the claim made in the
grievance is sustained and
that the satisfaction will be
provided" and
substituting therefor the language "shall
advance the grievance to the
next step of the grievance
procedure" (Dist. Ex. 9;
Dist. Br. 13-17).
In support of its proposal, the District
submits that the contractual
grievance procedures in all
seven (7) comparable
jurisdictions relied upon by the
District, including, for that
matter, District 9 which
was relied upon by the
Association, provide that failure
to comply with grievance time
lines merely advances the
grievance to the next step of
the grievance procedure
rather than sustaining the
grievance and providing remedial
relief therefor
as required by the parties' current labor
agreement. Under such current contract language, the
District argued that the
Association has manipulated
timelines and has sought
remedial relief for a grievance
because of the District's
untimely response (Dist. Ex. 9;
Dist. Br. 13-17)
The District also proposed to amend Step 1 of
the grievance procedure
contained in Section 5, Article 22
of the current labor agreement
by adding new language in
parentheses to the 14-day time
line requirement for the
aggrieved and/or the aggrieved's representative to meet
with the aggrieved's
supervisor upon ". . . knowledge of the
alleged grievance" as
follows: "(but in no event more
than
ninety (90) calendar days from
the alleged violation)"
(Dist. Ex. 9; Dist. Br.
13-17).
The District also proposed in the foregoing
paragraph to delete language
in the first sentence thereof
following "Step 1,"
specifically, that which states "or
following knowledge of alleged
grievance" (Dist. Ex. 9;
Dist. Br. 13-17)
In support of its proposals, the District argued
that such additions and
deletions to the current contract
language are appropriate because
the current language
provides an ". . .
open-ended appeal right" whereby the
Association could conceivably
file a grievance over an
alleged violation which
occurred years ago, claiming that
it was just made aware of such
alleged violation (Dist.
Ex. 9; Dist. Br. 13-17).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. In
light of the persuasive reasoning
articulated by Chairperson McCaffree in International
Association of Firefighters
Local 876, infra, coupled
with the unrebutted
claim by the District that at the
outset of contract
negotiations that the parties established
a ground rule reserving the
right of either party to change,
modify or delete any language
covered by a tentative agreement
(TA) up until joint
ratification of the agreement, the
arbitration panel finds that
the Association's position
that the District's grievance
procedure proposals should not
be considered on the ground
that tentative agreement (TA) on
such matter was reached by the
parties during contract
negotiations in November of
1992, is without merit.
Accordingly, the panel rejects
the Association's argument.
2. With
regard to the District's proposal to
delete the forfeiture language
in Section 4 of Article 22
of the current agreement with
regard to an untimely response
by the District to a grievance,
thereby resulting in the
grievance being sustained and
remedial relief provided
therefor,
the panel finds, absent any discussion or argument
on the merits of the proposal
by the Association at the
arbitration hearing or in its
post-hearing brief, that
such proposal is reasonable
and equitable, irrespective
of taking any comparable
jurisdictions into consideration.
The rather harsh result of the
existing contract language
which, in effect, would
sustain a grievance and provide
remedial relief therefor if the District untimely responds
to such matter does not, in
our opinion, promote harmonious
labor-management relations,
especially in the area of
handling and processing
grievances in an objective and
fair manner as part of the
continuous collective bargaining
process.
Moreover, the panel finds that merely advancing
a grievance to the next step
of the grievance procedure
under the District's proposal,
rather than sustaining it
and providing remedial relief therefor under the current
contract language in the event
of the District's untimely
response, poses no irreparable
harm to either party or the
grievant.
3. With
regard to the District's proposal to
amend Section 5, Article 22 of
the current labor agreement
by adding new language in
parentheses to the 14-day time
line requirement for the
aggrieved and/or the aggrieved's
representative to meet with
the aggrieved's supervisor upon
". . . knowledge of the alleged grievance" as
follows: ("but
in no event more than ninety
(90) calendar days from the
alleged violation)," the
panel finds, absent any discussion
or argument on the merits of
the proposal by the Association
at the arbitration hearing or
in its post-hearing brief,
that such proposal likewise is
reasonable and equitable,
irrespective of taking any
comparators into consideration.
Moreover, the panel finds that
such proposal poses no
irreparable harm to either
party or the grievant.
4. With
regard to the District's proposal
to delete current contract
language in Section 5 of Article
22 which states following
"Step 1," "or following knowledge
of alleged grievance,"
the panel finds, absent any discussion
or argument on the merits of
the proposal by the Association
at the arbitration hearing or
in its post-hearing brief, that
such proposal, by deleting
language of questionable purpose in
light of clear and unambiguous
language which precedes
it, reasonably clarifies the
processing of a written
grievance. Moreover, the panel finds that such proposal
poses no irreparable harm to
either party or the grievant.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel rejects the Association's
contention and argument that
the tentative agreement (TA)
reached between the parties
during contract negotiations
in November of 1992 is binding
and, hence, the District's
grievance procedure proposals
are not to be considered in
this arbitration proceeding.
2. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
reasoning and findings of
fact, determines that the
District's grievance procedure
proposals be adopted in
their entirety and incorporated
in the new collective
bargaining agreement.
Issue 8: Pay Out of Classification (Article
23)
A. Association
The Association proposed a new contract provision
for additional compensation
whenever an employee is
required to perform the duties
of a position rank above
the rank of such employee who
shall paid at the base rate
of the higher position or rank
(Assoc. Ex. 25; Assoc.
Br. 18-19)
If the higher position vacancy or "Acting
Position" exists for 31
days or less, such vacancy,
according to the Association
would be filled from the shift
on which it exists utilizing
the department's promotional
list. In the event there is no shift employee on
the
promotional list or there is
no promotional list, the
Association proposed that such
vacancy be filled using
the District's seniority list.
The Association further proposed that if it
were known that such vacancy
would extend beyond 31 days
then employees on the
promotional list would, in rank order
of placement, be afforded the
opportunity to fill the vacant
position. If such "temporary officer" were
promoted to a
permanent position, presumably
a position of higher rank,
the Association proposed that
the time spent in such position
would be applied to the
probationary period of the permanent
position.
In support of its proposal for pay out of
classification, the
Association contends and argues that the
labor agreement in District 6
contains the same language,
except that the employee
filling the higher position rank
must work within that rank
more than four (4) hours to be
entitled to the higher pay of
that rank, noting, however,
that such pay is retroactive
to the first hour if the
employee works more than four
(4) hours (Assoc. Ex. 25;
Assoc. Br. 18-19).
Moreover, the Association further contends and
argues that the labor
agreement in District 9 contains
similar language except that
the employee filling the higher
position rank must work within
that rank more than 12 hours
to be entitled to the higher
pay of that rank, noting,
however, that such pay is retroactive
to the first hour if
the employee works more than
12 hours (Assoc. Ex. 25;
Assoc. Br. 18-19).
B. District
The District rejected the Association proposal on
the grounds of its cost impact
and its intrusion and erosion
of management rights provided
in Article 14, Section 2 of the
labor agreement. In terms of cost impact, the District
submits that if the
Association's proposal were adopted
that it would increase, for
example, the hourly pay of a
lieutenant from $16.03 to
$17.63 if such employee worked
out-of-class as a captain, or
an additional 4.8 percent.
The District contends and
argues that the current contract
language provides that if such
employee worked out-of-class
as a captain that such
employee would receive a premium
equal to one-half the
difference between the two (2)
positions, namely, an
additional 80 cents per hour
(1/2 of $1.60 difference .80) or $16.93 (Dist. Ex. 10;
Dist. Br. 29-31).
With regard to management rights, the District
contends and argues that the
Association's proposal
intrudes upon those rights by
requiring that out-of-class
assignments be based solely on
seniority,(5) thereby depriving
the District of its ability to
assign qualified employees
to higher ranked
positions. Moreover, the District
submits
that under the Association's
proposal that a "temporary
officer" could, by
applying any time worked out-of-class
towards the probationary
period of the higher rank if the
such officer were ever
promoted to that rank, conceivably
satisfy most, if not all, of
the probationary period time
requirements before being
promoted to the higher rank
(Dist. Ex. 10; Dist. Br.
29-31). The District submits
that Chief Thomas confirmed
such a possibility in his
testimony.
_____
(5) The panel notes that the Association's proposal
for out-of-classification pay
is not based "solely" on
seniority. Rather, the proposal states that such
assignments
will be made first from the
department's promotional list
and if no shift employee is on
such list, or there is no
promotional list, then seniority
will govern in filling the
vacancy.
_____
The District submits that the labor agreements
in six (6) of the seven (7)
comparable jurisdictions relied
upon make no provision for
assignment of out-of-class pay
based on seniority, nor do
they credit time worked in the
higher rank towards the
probationary period of that rank.
The District acknowledged,
however, that the labor agreement
in District 6 does provide
that all time worked as a
temporary officer is credited
towards the probationary
period (Dist. Ex. 10; Dist.
Br. 30).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an
analysis of the comparable
jurisdictions reveal all four
(4) jurisdictions pay the base
rate for the position
being filled to employees
working out-of-classification.
2. The
panel further finds that all four (4)
comparable jurisdictions have
different requirements for
the number of hours required
to be worked in the higher
classification in order to
qualify for the higher rate
of pay.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the current contract
language of Article 23 be
amended to provide that employees
who work out of classification
shall be paid at the base
rate of the position being
filled.
2. The
panel hereby determines that the
current contract language of
Article 23 be amended to
read as follows:
Any employee covered by this
Agreement who is required by
the Fire Chief or his designee
to accept the responsibilities
and carry out the duties of a
position or rank above that
which they normally hold, they
shall be paid the base rate
for the position being filled.
An employee shall be paid hour
for hour when fulfilling a
higher rank or position, at
the higher rate.
Issue 9: Deferred Compensation (Article 28)
A. Association
The Association proposed to amend the current
language of Article 18,
Section 2 of the labor agreement,
which provides a deferred
compensation package based upon
employee contributions, by
adding new language requiring
that the District, effective
January 1, 1993, shall match
such funds up to a maximum of
$100.00 per month (Assoc.
Ex. 26; Assoc. Br. 19-20).
In support of its proposal, the Association
contends and argues that the
labor agreement in District 6
requires that that district
match employee contributions
to a deferred compensation
package up to a maximum of
$50.00 per month, and that the
labor agreement in District
9 requires that that district
match employee contributions
to a deferred compensation
package up to a maximum of
$100.00 per month. The Association calculated the cost
of such proposal at three (3)
percent over base (Assoc.
Ex. 26; Assoc. Br. 20).
B. District
The District rejected the Association's proposal
on deferred compensation,
claiming that it represented an
increase in wages of 2.9
percent over and above the
District's proposed CPI wage
increase of 3.6 percent
(Dist. Ex. 11; Dist. Br.
31-32)
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an
analysis of the data of
comparable jurisdictions reveal
that each jurisdiction
contributes various amounts to
deferred compensation packages
on a matching basis with
their employees.
2. The
panel further finds that such data
reveal that such jurisdictions
contribute an average of
$93.75 per month per employee
on a matching basis.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the District
contribute a maximum of $50
per month per employee on a
matching basis to the deferred
compensation plan retroactive
to January 1, 1993.
Issue 10: Chain of Command (Article 33)
A. Association
The Association proposed new contract language
providing that "paid
personnel" are subordinate to
"paid officers, and that
"[V]olunteer officers hold rank
over volunteer personnel
only" (Assoc. Ex. 27; Assoc.
Br. 20).
In support of its position, the Association
contends and argues that the
labor agreement in District 6
contains similar language and
that the organizational chart
in District 9 provides the
same results (Assoc. Ex. 27;
Assoc. Br. 20).
The Association submits that its proposal is
grounded on the assumption
that:
. . . a resident volunteer with
less than three years as a
firefighter can take a volunteer
Lieutenant's exam (which is
different than the career
Lieutenant's exam) and have
the fire ground authority to
order a 10 year career fighter
who acts as a relief shift
commander. (Assoc. Ex. 27;
Assoc. Br. 20)
B. District
The District rejected the Association's proposal
on the basis that there is a
past practice of long standing
whereby ". . . volunteer
firefighters enjoy the same
privileges and authority of
rank enjoyed by the paid
staff" (Dist. Ex. 12;
Dist. Br. 32-53). The District
submits that such proposal,
according to Chief Thomas'
testimony, would have a
"very severe demoralizing effect
on volunteers," claiming
that teamwork is essential for
safety purposes.
The District submits that its structure is
paramilitary in nature,
thereby rejecting the
Association's underlying
premise that a ". . . paid
probationaly
firefighter, just out of the academy, . . .
[would] be superior in rank to
a non-paid volunteer Captain
with 15 years of service"
(Dist. Br. 12).
C. Findings
of Fact
1. The
panel finds that a review and an
analysis of the comparable
jurisdiction reveal that the
labor agreement in District 6
has contract language similar
to that proposed by the
Association.
2. The
panel further finds that department
policy in District 9 provides
for a chain of command
similar to that proposed by
the Association.
3. The
panel also finds that District 2 has
no volunteer firefighter
personnel.
4. The
panel also finds that the labor
agreement in District 3 is
silent with regard to chain of
command.
D. Determinations
and Award
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the Association's
proposal regarding chain of
command be adopted and
incorporated in its entirety
in the new labor agreement.
RECAPITULATION OF DETERMINATIONS AND
AWARD OF ARBITRATION PANEL
Comparable Jurisdictions
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing findings,
determines that four (4) of
the five (5) comparable
jurisdictions which the
parties have historically relied on
in contract negotiations will
serve as comparators for
purposes of determining wage
and benefit increases on a
"total package"
basis, namely, Pierce county Fire Districts 2,
3, 6 and 9.
Issue 1: Monthly Rates of Pay (Article 8)
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards a wage increase of
6.75 percent for bargaining unit employees retroactive
to January 1, 1993.
Issue 2: Work Hours (Article 9)
(a) Hours for Shift Employees
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that 24-hour shift
employees of the District be
granted another K-Day,
thereby reducing their work
week from 53 to 52.54 hours.
(b) Hours for Day Employees
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing findings,
determines and awards that day-shift
employees of the District
shall work 40 hours per week,
Monday through Friday, from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
including a one-hour lunch period,
and that they may work a flex
schedule, work load permitting.
(c) Normal Working for Shift Employees
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing findings,
determines that the contract
language in the District 2
labor agreement regarding the
issue of normal working hours
for shift personnel provides a
manageable, productive work
schedule for both the District
and the Association.
2. Accordingly,
the panel determines and awards
that the following language be
incorporated in the new
labor agreement between the
parties:
Productive hours for shift
personnel
shall be 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday and 8:00
a.m.-
5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday,
excluding holidays.
One hour of productive time shall
be set aside for physical
training
Monday through Friday.
Duties assigned during productive
hours on Saturday and Sunday shall
be limited to PR activities and
in-station projects (i.e. -
weekly
station cleaning, weekly hose
change, in-house training
opportunities, etc.)
Training drills may be scheduled
during non-productive hours
(excluding holidays) on a
reasonably limited basis. Such
drills shall be pre-scheduled
on the quarterly training
schedule.
PR activities (i.e. - public
display, parades, standby during
fireworks displays, etc.) may be
scheduled during non-productive
hours. The employees involved
in the drill and/or PR activity
shall be compensated with an
equal amount of standby time
during productive hours prior
to such events taking place.
Nothing herein shall limit the
District in exercising discretion
in varying the hours of duty of
any employee in accordance with
past practice.
(d) Scheduling of "K"-Days
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the current contract
language be retained with
respect to the scheduling of
K-Days.
2. The panel
further determines and awards
that the current contract
language be amended only to
reflect the panel's
determination and award regarding
Issue 2 -- Hours for Shift
Employees --, specifically,
that ". . .
24-hour shift employees of the District be granted
another K-Day thereby reducing
their work week from 53 to
52.54 hours."
Issue 3: Vacation Accrual for Day Shift
(Article 12)
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing finding,
determines and awards that the
Association's proposal for
vacation accrual for day-shift
employees be adopted and
incorporated in the new labor
agreement.
Issue 4: Seniority/personnel Reduction
(Article 19)
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing findings,
determines and awards that the
Association's proposal
governing seniority;
specifically, by date of hire, be
adopted and incorporated in
the new labor agreement.
Issue 5: Medical and Dental Premiums
(Article 20)
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing finding,
determines and awards that the
District's maximum
contribution for
medical/dental insurance be increased to
$514, plus 50 percent of the
contribution in excess of
$514 effective the first day
of the month following the
date of this opinion and
award.
Issue 6: Sick Leave (Article 21)
(a) Sick Leave Accrual for Pay Shift
1. The
panel, in view of the foregoing finding,
determines and awards that the
Association's proposal for
sick leave accrual for
day-shift employees be adopted and
incorporated in the new labor
agreement.
(b) Sick Leave Buy-Back
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
finding, determines that the
Association's proposal for
sick leave
"buy-back" is not supported by the record
evidence.
Issue 7: Grievance Procedure (Article 22)
1. The panel
rejects the Association's
contention and argument that
the tentative agreement (TA)
reached between the parties
during contract negotiations
in November of 1992 is binding
and, hence, the District's
grievance procedure proposals
are not to be considered in
this arbitration proceeding.
2. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
reasoning and findings of
fact, determines that the
District's grievance procedure
proposals be adopted in
their entirety and
incorporated in the new collective
bargaining agreement.
Issue 8: Pay Out of Classification (Article
23)
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the current contract
language of Article 23 be
amended to provide that employees
who work out of classification
shall be paid at the base
rate of the position being
filled.
2. The panel
hereby determines that the
current contract language of
Article 23 be amended to
read as follows:
Any employee covered by this
Agreement who is required by
the Fire Chief or his designee
to accept the responsibilities
and carry out the duties of a
position or rank above that
which they normally hold, they
shall be paid the base rate
for the position being filled.
An employee shall be paid hour
for hour when fulfilling a
higher rank or position, at
the higher rate.
Issue 9: Deferred Compensation (Article 28)
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the District
contribute a maximum of $50
per month per employee on a
matching basis to the deferred
compensation plan retroactive
to
Issue 10: Chain of Command (Article 33)
1. The
panel, in light of the foregoing
findings, determines and
awards that the Association's
proposal regarding chain of
command be adopted and
incorporated in its entirety
in the new labor agreement.
-65-
TABLE 1 COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
SENIOR
FIREFIGHTER
1993 Wages, Hours, Benefits Comparison
Dept. 1st class Weekly Day Hourly
Med/Den Med/Den Defered
Name monthly Hours Hours
____________________________________________________________________________________
District #2 $3553.00 49.54 40 $16.55 100 $150.00
District #3 $3693.00 53 40 $16.08 100 $75.00
District #6 $3444.00 53 40 $15.03 100 $50.00
District #9 $3602.00 50.92 40 $16.32 $514.00 $100.00
Average $3573.00 51.62 40 $16.00 $514.00 $93.75
Current #7 $3347.00
53 45 $14.57 $445.00 $0.00
Footnote: Although District #5 has been a
historical comparable, the panel has
not included them in this
table because wage and benefit information
available only for 1991.
Signed this 24th day of
September, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL P. TlNNING MICHAEL
J. MCGOVERN
Neutral Chairperson Panel
Member for the Association
BILL
R. WILLIAMS
Panel
Member for the District
Service of this arbitration
award and determinations by
certified mail to Michael J. Meglemre, District
representative, and Jack Andren, Association representative.
Service of this arbitration
award and determinations by
regular mail to Bill R.
Williams, Panel Member; Michael
McGovern, Panel Member; and
Marvin L. Schurke, Executive
Director, PERC.
Signatures of Arbitration
Panel Members
Determinations and Award
PERC Case No. 10358-I-93-00221
Concur Dissent | Concur Dissent
|
Issue No. 1 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 2(a) /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 2(b) /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 2(c) /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 2(d) /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 3 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 4 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 5 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 6 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 7 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 8 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 9 /s/ | /s/
Issue No. 10 /s/ | /s/
Bill R. Williams | Michael J. McGovern
District Member | Association Member
The Chair concurred with the determination
and award in the
issue of deferred compensation (No. 9) ;
however, he registered
concern as to whether the deferred
compensation plan is
empowered to accept contributions by the
District.
/s/
PAUL T. TINNING, Neutral Chairperson Date
PAUL T. TINNING
ARBITRATOR
Michael J. Meglemre
3403 -
Jack M. Andren
International Association of
Fire Fighters
Re: Arbitration Determinations & Award
Pierce
County Fire District No. 7
& IAFF Local No. 2175
PERC Case
No. 10358-I-93-221
Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that a
typographical error appears in
determination and Award No. 2
of
Shift Employees afound on page 24 and the Recapitulation of
that issue found on page 59 of
the report, specifically, the
first paragraph which reads:
Productive hours for shift
personnel
shall be
through Friday and
on Saturday and Sunday,
excluding hol-
idays.
The underlined language above,
namely
"
The arbitration panel is
cognizant of this typo and fully
concurs in amending the
subject language by deleting the
"
place.
Accordingly, the arbitration
panel hereby directs the parties
to so amend pages 24 and 59 of
your reports to reflect this
housekeeping amendment.
Cordially,
/s/
Paul P. Tinning
Neutral Chairperson
xc;: Bill R. Williams, Michael McGovern, Panel
Members; and
Marvin L. Schurke, Executive
Director, PERC